Exquisite Chess Sets Once Captured the Game’s Global Heritage | Hacker News Reader

Exquisite Chess Sets Once Captured the Game’s Global Heritage

collectorsweekly.com

Some of those old sets, and also some modern collector sets, can be very nice looking. They can make wonderful decorations for a living room.

However, quite a lot of serious chess players (I'd go so far as to say most) dislike actually playing on such sets. Serious players almost always want a normal Staunton design, in a size and material and color that meets FIDE or USCF tournament equipment standards. Same for the board.

If you have chess playing friends, do them a favor and do NOT buy them a fancy chess set for Christmas or their birthday or graduation or other gift-giving occasion, unless you buy them a set you KNOW that they want.

Even as a casual player, if I'm playing something that doesn't resemble Staunton's pieces, I typically spend half my time trying to figure out which piece is which.

Although besides the utility of actually playing with them, some of the old designs are pretty interesting in the tweaks that they make. The Lewis Chessmen at the British Museum, for example, replaced rooks with berserkers, represented by a figure biting on the top of a tall shield.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/976x549_b/p01t83kd.jpg

It makes a bit more sense than castles; I wouldn't want to be staring down a row at that one on the left.

I would agree that different chess pieces makes for a difficult game and most likely gives the owner a slight advantage over the unfamiliar opponent but I would say if you find a fancy chess set and think it would be a good gift, buy it, as I think most players have multiple boards and sets and collecting chess boards in itself can be a great hobby.

"Exquisite" chess sets are among the worst kind of kitsch. Why? Because they are non-functional. No one would play a serious or even a friendly game of chess with them.

So what is their function, other than to convey clutter, confusion, and ugliness? Perhaps "to capture the game's global heritage."

I would argue that if you can't play chess on them ("non-functional") you are a pretty awful player (and also have a really bad memory).

I don't know much about the topic, but going off the article, and assuming a non-ornamental set;

There's really no reason to claim its non-functional; its just not useful for games against arbitrary players.

But its hardly a complex adaptation, requiring but a few games to achieve proficiency (this I know from my own experience with an ornamental set, against my brother)

Anyone you play with repeatedly can be played with on a variant set; and since I imagine most don't only play against randoms in a park/tournament, there's quite a bit of use to find.

And as the article notes, knowing an additional set doesnt detract from knowledge of the first (bilingual)

Tbh, the only reason I can think of to explicitly deny owning or using non-standard set, ignoring random pick-up games and tournaments, is either pretentiousness or genuine love for the Staunton set

You have a terrible style of writing.

Expand

I "made" a set using different sized shot glasses for each piece, and different colors of alcohol for each side. No doubt I wasn't the first, nor the last to do so. Never managed to have everything line up in having a willing opponent, clean glasses, and an environment appropriate for getting drunk enough, so it remains unplayed.

Great article (honestly: it's worth a read), but it doesn't display properly on a half-widescreen window (at least not mine, at least not in Firefox).

Remember when the Web was supposed to be device-independent? That was really awesome.

Half the fun of computer chess games like Chessmaster was the cool variant piece sets that were included.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com